1. I think that a flexible stage design would be best when performing Split Second. Flexible stages work to enhance quick scene changes and differences in ways that a low-funded production might not be able to supplement with backdrop or prop changes. Having a flexible set-up also means that lighting can be manipulated more readily, and I think that lighting is extremely important in Split Second. The lighting in the first and last scenes, especially, serve to highlight the moral ambiguity of Val’s actions, and are also realistic in the first scene – relative darkness outside on a late July 4th night. A flexible theater can also achieve some of the benefits of other stages, like the round stage and the proximity of the actors to the audience. Split Second would benefit from closing this distance to emphasize the reality of these actions. Many people in the audience will relate to the impact of racial prejudice on Val’s rash decision and will feel conflicted in the debates between him and Rusty.
2. None of the scene changes, apart from the park scene and the reviews from the police department, are in highly discernable areas, so a design team would need to compete with these limitations and the original directorial direction of promoting minimalism when it comes to props. The set design team would also have difficultly with larger props – namely the car in the first scene and whatever type of judicial “room” they wanted for Val’s final deposition. One of the other scenes that could be difficult to mirror would be any kind of representation of Val’s childhood trauma. If it were a larger production, the stage design team may even provide room for a “flashback sequence”, but otherwise there is no possible visible cue for Val’s memory. The audience can certainly understand the gravity of it without it, but I think that some of the best scenes in Split Second are when McIntyre establishes visceral emotional reactions from his characters. However, individual props would be relatively easy to accomplish, in that the major pieces – a gun and a knife – are easy to get.
3. I think that William H. Willis should be dressed in dirty jeans, a relatively dirty shirt, and possible a camo jacket. The shirt should be a light blue or a lighter color other than white, so as to see a possible hole or blood after the shot is fired. Willis needs to not be so poorly dressed that his claims of “borrowing his brother’s car” rather than stealing it could almost be believable. I think that the ambiguity of Willis’ initial actions (until he obviously confesses that the car was “begging to be stolen”) should be maintained for as long as possible. I think that twisting Willis’ intentions further complicate Val’s actions and emphasize the moral “gray area” in which the shooting took place. The camo jacket, specifically, can allude to Val’s Vietnam service and can place the events in the correct timeframe (1980s, post-Vietnam).
4. I think that in the transition to the last scene, The entire stage should be in very minimal lighting, but enough to give the allusion that others are watching Val or that he is facing a judge/court. Val should be in a sterile spotlight – unrelenting and unflinching. He is having to face what he has done and this is the last possible moment to tell the truth. I think that as the judge continues speaking and prompting Val, the light should get brighter and almost blur out Val’s face. Val is no longer the person that he thought he was or his father thought he was, and the blinding white light could technically be seen as an “eternal judgement”. As soon as Val finishes giving his answer, the entire stage should be dark as the gunshot is heard.
5. The playwright himself mentions a type of “twinkling chime music” throughout the play and I agree that on some level, the music should never be “calm”. Even this chime music should put every character on edge because Val himself is never “calm” or “sure” in his actions, even at the end with the final gunshot. If I were to choose some different music from the pre-show, one of the first songs I would pick would be Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On”. The song is a 1970s, Vietnam-era piece told from the perspective of a returning veteran and discusses the prevalence of racial violence and poverty that was gripping America. I think that this song is one that encapsulates Val’s perspective, but not necessarily McIntyre’s entire intention with the play. The veteran in Gaye’s song is validated and is clearly defining right from wrong, but this is not the message of the play. Val’s rationalization of his actions rely on the fears of the previous decade, and he builds on earlier anger to justify his present actions.
2. None of the scene changes, apart from the park scene and the reviews from the police department, are in highly discernable areas, so a design team would need to compete with these limitations and the original directorial direction of promoting minimalism when it comes to props. The set design team would also have difficultly with larger props – namely the car in the first scene and whatever type of judicial “room” they wanted for Val’s final deposition. One of the other scenes that could be difficult to mirror would be any kind of representation of Val’s childhood trauma. If it were a larger production, the stage design team may even provide room for a “flashback sequence”, but otherwise there is no possible visible cue for Val’s memory. The audience can certainly understand the gravity of it without it, but I think that some of the best scenes in Split Second are when McIntyre establishes visceral emotional reactions from his characters. However, individual props would be relatively easy to accomplish, in that the major pieces – a gun and a knife – are easy to get.
3. I think that William H. Willis should be dressed in dirty jeans, a relatively dirty shirt, and possible a camo jacket. The shirt should be a light blue or a lighter color other than white, so as to see a possible hole or blood after the shot is fired. Willis needs to not be so poorly dressed that his claims of “borrowing his brother’s car” rather than stealing it could almost be believable. I think that the ambiguity of Willis’ initial actions (until he obviously confesses that the car was “begging to be stolen”) should be maintained for as long as possible. I think that twisting Willis’ intentions further complicate Val’s actions and emphasize the moral “gray area” in which the shooting took place. The camo jacket, specifically, can allude to Val’s Vietnam service and can place the events in the correct timeframe (1980s, post-Vietnam).
4. I think that in the transition to the last scene, The entire stage should be in very minimal lighting, but enough to give the allusion that others are watching Val or that he is facing a judge/court. Val should be in a sterile spotlight – unrelenting and unflinching. He is having to face what he has done and this is the last possible moment to tell the truth. I think that as the judge continues speaking and prompting Val, the light should get brighter and almost blur out Val’s face. Val is no longer the person that he thought he was or his father thought he was, and the blinding white light could technically be seen as an “eternal judgement”. As soon as Val finishes giving his answer, the entire stage should be dark as the gunshot is heard.
5. The playwright himself mentions a type of “twinkling chime music” throughout the play and I agree that on some level, the music should never be “calm”. Even this chime music should put every character on edge because Val himself is never “calm” or “sure” in his actions, even at the end with the final gunshot. If I were to choose some different music from the pre-show, one of the first songs I would pick would be Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On”. The song is a 1970s, Vietnam-era piece told from the perspective of a returning veteran and discusses the prevalence of racial violence and poverty that was gripping America. I think that this song is one that encapsulates Val’s perspective, but not necessarily McIntyre’s entire intention with the play. The veteran in Gaye’s song is validated and is clearly defining right from wrong, but this is not the message of the play. Val’s rationalization of his actions rely on the fears of the previous decade, and he builds on earlier anger to justify his present actions.